SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that eligible ad hoc, contractual and consolidated employees covered by the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, become entitled to regularisation once they fulfil the statutory conditions, and that the government cannot arbitrarily postpone the benefit until a formal regularisation order is issued.
A Full Bench of the High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, clarified that the 150-day period prescribed under the Act for processing regularisation cases is procedural and does not determine the date from which an eligible employee acquires the right to regularisation.
The judgment, pronounced on August 11, 2026, in LPA No. 70/2022, resolves a conflict between two earlier Division Bench judgments on the interpretation of Section 5 of the Act, particularly its first proviso, which states that regularisation takes effect from the date of the regularisation order.
The reference arose in a case titled UT of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner Secretary to Government, Forest Ecology Department versus Neeru Pandita. The Full Bench had reserved its judgment on July 15, 2026.
The court examined whether the government could defer regularisation indefinitely despite an employee having fulfilled the statutory eligibility requirements, and whether the 150-day period under Section 10 could be treated as a mandatory waiting period before regularisation took effect.
Under Section 5, an employee seeking regularisation must have been appointed against a clear vacancy, must have continued in service on the appointed day, must have possessed the prescribed qualifications and eligibility at the time of initial appointment, must not have had disciplinary or criminal proceedings pending on the appointed day, and must have completed seven years of service in the relevant capacity.
The Bench held that the statutory conditions, rather than the date on which the government eventually issues a formal order, determine when the employee becomes entitled to regularisation.
It clarified that employees who had completed seven years of service and fulfilled the other statutory conditions on the appointed day, April 28, 2010, were entitled to regularisation with effect from that date. Employees who had not completed seven years by then would become entitled to regularisation upon completing the required period, provided they fulfilled the remaining conditions.
The court also made it clear that the Act does not confer unrestricted discretion on the government to choose the effective date of regularisation at its convenience.
Conflict between earlier judgments
The Full Bench was constituted following a reference made by a Division Bench on September 11, 2024, after it noticed conflicting interpretations in two judgments delivered by benches of equal strength.
In Rabia Shah versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, decided on May 19, 2015, the court had held that eligible employees could not be left waiting indefinitely for regularisation. Reading Sections 5 and 10 together, it interpreted the law to mean that regularisation could take effect 150 days after the right accrued.
That interpretation was subsequently followed in several cases, including State of Jammu and Kashmir versus Afaq Rasool Gadda and another, decided on August 4, 2017, and State of J&K and others versus Ulfat Ara and others, decided on November 27, 2020.
However, in Abdul Majid Magray versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, decided on May 18, 2022, another Division Bench took a different view. It held that regularisation could take effect only from the date of the actual order, regardless of when the employee had completed seven years of service.
The Full Bench was therefore required to determine which interpretation correctly reflected the law and whether the first proviso to Section 5 gave the executive excessive discretion over the effective date of regularisation.
The judgment also considered the subsequent decision in Dr Muneeb Iqbal versus Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others, decided on February 10, 2025. That case took into account the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Jammu and Kashmir and others versus Mohd Syed Parray and others, which held that eligible employees who had completed seven years of continuous service on the appointed day were entitled to regularisation from that day, rather than from an earlier date.
The Full Bench clarified the legal position by distinguishing the date on which an employee acquires eligibility from the administrative process required to issue a formal regularisation order.
150-day period is procedural
Section 10 of the 2010 Act establishes the mechanism for examining and processing regularisation cases through an Empowered Committee. It provides for the referral of eligible cases, scrutiny and verification, consideration of objections and recommendations before the concerned administrative department issues regularisation orders after obtaining the prescribed approval.
The earlier interpretation in Rabia Shah relied on this procedure to conclude that regularisation should take effect 150 days after eligibility accrued.
The Full Bench rejected the view that the 150-day period could operate as a waiting period determining the effective date of regularisation. It treated the period as procedural, intended to facilitate the administrative exercise, rather than a condition that postpones an employee’s statutory entitlement.
The ruling means that administrative delay in issuing a formal order cannot, by itself, deprive an eligible employee of the benefit from the date on which the statutory conditions were fulfilled.
At the same time, the judgment does not dispense with the eligibility requirements prescribed under Section 5. An employee must satisfy the applicable conditions, including the requirement of seven years of service, before claiming regularisation under the Act.
Earlier rulings clarified
The Full Bench’s decision addresses the conflicting interpretations in Rabia Shah and Abdul Majid Magray and clarifies how Sections 5 and 10 must be read together.
The ruling rejects the proposition that regularisation can be postponed solely until the date of a formal order, while also rejecting the interpretation that the 150-day procedural period automatically determines the effective date.
The court directed that the judgment would operate prospectively and apply to pending and future cases. Cases that have already attained finality are not to be reopened on the basis of the ruling.
The matter was referred back to the appropriate Division Bench for further proceedings in accordance with the Full Bench’s determination.
